Title The Big Bang: What Does It Mean for Us?
Author(s) Hollis R. Johnson
Reference FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 277–312.
ISSN 1550-3194 (print), 2156-8049 (online)
Abstract Review of “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination
of the Mormon Docrine of Creation and a Defense of
Creatio ex nihilo” (2002), by Paul Copan and William
Lane Craig.
THE BIG BANG:
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR US?
Hollis R. Johnson
Hollis R. Johnson (PhD, University of Colorado, Boulder) is a
professor emeritus of astronomy at Indiana University. He has
authored or coauthored about 90 articles in refereed journals and
lectured at several universities in the United States and abroad.
To say that everything came from the Big Bang is like saying
babies come from maternity wards—true in a narrow sense,
but it hardly goes back far enough. Where did the stuff that
went “bang” come from? What was it? Why did it bang?¹
Alan H. Guth, codeveloper of the concept
of the inflationary universe
I sincerely thank B. Kent Harrison, Brigham Young University, and David H. Bailey,
University of California at Berkeley, for pleasant and useful discussions. Adam N.
Davis, Case Western Reserve University, and Ronald W. Hellings, Montana State University, have made helpful comments on the manuscript. Several anonymous referees
also deserve thanks.
1. Brad Lemley, “Guth’s Grand Guess,” Discover, April 2002, 32.
Review of Paul Copan and William Lane Craig. “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation and a
Defense of Creatio ex nihilo.” In The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed.
Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, 95–152. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. 535 pp., with glossary and indexes.
$21.99.
278 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
Introduction
Our imaginations are stretched to try to understand our remarkable universe and its origin. Why do astronomers say the universe
is expanding? Did the universe start with a big bang? What was the
universe made from? What is outside the universe? How does the big
bang impact Latter-day Saint doctrine? In this essay I describe the
observations (facts) that led to the concept of a big bang and discuss
some of the ideas, theories, and scenarios it has spawned. Armed with
that knowledge, I rebut the arguments of a recent article that attempts
to use the big bang to discredit Latter-day Saint theology and discuss
some aspects of the intersection of Latter-day Saint theology and current knowledge of the universe.
What is the big bang?
In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble used the 100-inch telescope at the
Mount Wilson Observatory to explore the so-called spiral nebulae,
many of which turned out to be galaxies outside our own Milky Way
Galaxy. Hubble built upon a discovery by Vesto M. Slipher that light
from distant galaxies is shifted slightly toward longer wavelengths (a
phenomenon called a red shift), indicating (because of the Doppler
effect) that these galaxies are moving away from us. Examinations of
many galaxies showed that their speeds (away from us) were proportional to their distances, and this demonstrates that an observer in
every galaxy would see the same expansion. (The rule is now labeled
Hubble’s law.) On the basis of this observed principle, astronomers
conclude that the universe is expanding.
Imagine, now, a film of the expansion run in reverse. On such
an imaginary journey backward in time, an observer would see the
galaxies move closer and closer together. Eventually, all galaxies and
their contents would have been squashed into a high-density soup of
matter and radiation and ultimately, it would seem, into a point of infinite density called a singularity, which is a space-time point at which
mass-energy density becomes so high that space-time is curved in
upon itself, the usual descriptions of matter and energy break down,
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 279
and physical quantities become infinite, meaning “unbounded.” (There
is no information beyond that point.) At some long-ago epoch, this
tiny speck started to expand, and scientists have adopted Sir Fred
Hoyle’s scornful nickname—“big bang”—for that expansion. (Following others, I write big bang without capitals.) The term big bang is
used for both the whole expansion period and, by some authors, for
the presumed moment of origin at time zero. Since science can tell us
so little about the origin, I restrict myself to the first usage.
The general theory of relativity, announced by Albert Einstein in
1916, states that the laws of nature do not depend upon the motion or
acceleration of the observer and that the properties of space are related
to the mass-energy within it. It is succinctly described by theoretical
physicist John A. Wheeler: “Matter tells space how to bend; space tells
matter how to move.”² The general theory of relativity made several
predictions that have since been verified to a high degree of accuracy,
and the theory is now generally accepted by scientists. When Einstein applied the general theory of relativity to the universe in 1917,
his equations indicated that the universe—the space in which stars
and galaxies exist—was unstable due to the influence of the combined
gravitation of all the galaxies. (Prior to Hubble’s discovery, the accepted view was that the universe was static.) To counteract attractive gravitation and produce a static universe, Einstein added another
term to his equations, and it became known as the cosmological constant (or, more generally, the “cosmological term”).
Commencing with Einstein’s publication of the general theory of
relativity and extending through the 1930s, physicists and mathematicians further applied equations from the general theory of relativity—
without the cosmological constant—to the universe under various assumptions and found that they described an expansion. Since these
theoretical results agreed with Hubble’s expanding universe, Einstein
naturally abandoned his cosmological term (calling it a great mistake).
2. See astro.physics.sc.edu/selfpacedunits/Unit57.html (accessed 27 September 2004).
See also John A. Wheeler, A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime (New York: Scientific American Library, 1990), 11–14: “Matter tells spacetime how to bend and spacetime returns the
complement by telling matter how to move.”
280 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
However, the cosmological term didn’t quite disappear from the scene,
and in recent years it has again become important, as we shall see.
Present scientific theories of the big bang really deal with the aftermath of the big bang, and we must be cautious about earlier epochs,
incredibly short though they were. As shown below, the standard hot
big bang model starts a tiny fraction of a second after a conjectured
time zero (t = 0). Inflationary scenarios (discussed later) can take us a
tiny bit nearer the beginning. Perhaps M-theories (also discussed later)
can take us even closer. But conditions very near the presumed time
zero are still unknown. One physicist writes: “The beginning of time
is, perhaps not surprisingly, one of the most speculative topics in cosmology. As we traverse this uncharted territory, keep in mind that the
picture of cosmic history that we draw, and even the questions that we
might ask, depend on our current (and still preliminary) understanding of physical law at these enormous energies and temperatures.”³
Besides lacking a complete theory, scientists have very little observational data from the early days of the universe. The flight of the
galaxies yields no data on the beginning. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation provides the best and earliest information,
but that radiation survives from the epoch when the universe became
transparent with the formation of atoms—about three hundred thousand years after the beginning. (Before that time, the universe was too
hot for atoms to form.) Very old galaxies, whose discovery is mentioned in the media from time to time, date from a few hundred million years later.
During the 1940s and 1950s, a rival to the big bang theory—the
steady-state theory—was proposed by Hermann Bondi and Thomas
Gold, who were later joined by Fred Hoyle. This outspoken trio suggested that as galaxies fly apart in space, new matter (in the form of
hydrogen atoms) spontaneously appears from nowhere to maintain
the same overall matter density. Most physicists balked at the concept
of creation of matter out of nothing, but backers of the theory declared
3. Fred Adams, Our Living Multiverse: A Book of Genesis in 0+7 Chapters (New
York: Pi, 2004), 38.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 281
it was no more outlandish than the idea of creation of matter out of
nothing through the big bang.⁴
About 1949, George Gamow, often called the brightest physicist
who did not win a Nobel prize, suggested that the big bang would
have been very hot near the beginning. Aided by a bit of luck, he and
his collaborators predicted that the light from the initial “fireball”—
originally gamma rays (more energetic than x-rays) but now redshifted into the microwave radio spectrum—might still be observable. Since no equipment at that time could detect such radiation, the
paper was almost forgotten. However, in 1965 a pervasive microwave
radiation, seen in all directions of space, was detected and eventually
identified as the predicted relict radiation. It is now known as the 3 K
CMB radiation, because its spectrum is precisely that expected from
an ideal radiator at that temperature (actually, 2.7 K). (Scientists measure temperature in absolute degrees or Kelvins, or K, and 273 must
be subtracted from K to obtain temperatures in degrees Centigrade,
or C.) The CMB radiation was emitted at a very high temperature (and
therefore at very short wavelengths) but has been greatly red-shifted
by expansion and cooling in the intervening eons to its present shape.
It fills all space and forms a curtain beyond which (and therefore earlier than which) we cannot observe. All information from earlier epochs is either extrapolated or based on theory.
Is the big bang important to Latter-day Saints?
A group of evangelical scholars have mounted a broad frontal
attack on certain doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints in a recent book, The New Mormon Challenge. In a chapter
with the title “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon
Doctrine of Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo,” Paul Copan
and William Lane Craig put forward several claims regarding the big
bang and its perceived relation to Latter-day Saint theology:
4. An interesting description of the life and times of the steady-state theory is given
by Martin Rees, Before the Beginning (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997), 36–47.
282 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
1. The standard hot big bang theory is the best description of the
origin of the universe.
2. An initial physical singularity in the standard big bang theory
both requires and proves creatio ex nihilo—the creation of the universe from absolutely nothing. “The standard Big Bang model . . . thus
describes a universe that is not eternal in the past but that came into
being a finite time ago. Moreover—and this deserves underscoring—
the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo” (pp. 139–40). Copan
and Craig also add thermodynamic arguments to bolster the claim of
an initial singularity and a creation from nothing.
3. This idea of a creation from nothing contradicts Latter-day
Saint beliefs about eternalism—the claim that God, human spirits,
and even the elements are eternal. Therefore, claim Copan and Craig,
to be included among Christians, Latter-day Saints must reject the
doctrine of eternalism and adopt the doctrine of creation from nothing. Among the more memorable statements by Copan and Craig is
the following:
The Big Bang represents the origin of all matter and energy,
even of physical space and time themselves. . . . Therefore, to
hold that matter/energy are eternal or that God is the physical
product of a beginningless progression is irreconcilable with
the theory. The problem posed by the Big Bang for Mormon
theology is especially severe, not merely because the Big Bang
theory supports creation ex nihilo, but because the Mormon
concept of God as an extended material object existing in the
universe requires, in connection with Big Bang cosmogony,
that God himself (or his progenitors) came into being ex nihilo. Thus, Big Bang cosmogony is a veritable dagger at the
throat of Mormon theology. (p. 146)
4. The Latter-day Saint concept of God as an embodied being
existing in space and time subjects God to eventual destruction in the
heat death of the universe.
Copan and Craig’s approach is scarcely dispassionate. They heap
scorn upon the Latter-day Saint concept of deity. For example, they
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 283
title their chapter “Creator or Craftsman?” Given a choice, most folks
(including Latter-day Saints) would, of course, choose to dignify God
as a creator rather than a craftsman. In the Copan and Craig presentation, God is the creator because he brings entities like atoms, stars,
and galaxies into being from nothing (absolute nothing), and in their
view the Latter-day Saint God is (merely) a craftsman because he fashions entities like atoms, stars, and galaxies from preexisting pieces.
Where did Copan and Craig go wrong?
Let me say up front that in my opinion Copan and Craig went wrong
in several significant ways:
1. Copan and Craig commit what I call the Aquinas fallacy. Seeing religious beliefs supported through scientific arguments reminds
us that Thomas Aquinas used the scientific knowledge of his day, drawn
principally from Aristotle, as a framework for his systematic theology.
The resulting mixture of biblical teachings and Aristotelian science,
often called scholasticism, was accepted and taught by Roman Catholics for centuries. It is still alive, though its scientific elements have had
to be revised. The original acceptance of this doctrine led in the West
to the sharp separation of science and religion into two distinct and
often competitive enterprises. The Aquinas fallacy consists of assuming that current science, including both fact and speculation, provides
final answers. I named the fallacy after Aquinas because of his prominence, but it could equally well have been named after any number of
other figures—Jewish, Christian, and Muslim—who shared his presuppositions. Science, however, is an ongoing, self-correcting process
leading to increased knowledge and understanding, and many wrong
ideas are suggested and discarded before a corrected understanding
eventually emerges.
Copan and Craig take the standard hot big bang model as a final
scientific description of the origin of the universe and use it to establish
a doctrine of “creation from nothing.” But the scriptures, I believe,
were written with purposes rather different from the attempt to understand and explain the universe. It is essential to realize that both
the scientific and the religious canons of knowledge are incomplete,
284 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
and it would be wrong to assume that either gives definitive answers
about the other. While none can doubt the value of the knowledge and
understanding brought into the world through science, one should be
cautious in employing scientific results to support dogmas about God.
2. The scientific views of Copan and Craig are out of date. In their
attempt to use scientific results, Copan and Craig employ the standard
hot big bang cosmology that was current in the late 1970s, including a
singularity at the origin of the universe, without understanding that
quantum mechanics prevents a true singularity—a fact known much
earlier. They also comment negatively on such important and wellaccepted scientific ideas as vacuum energies and inflationary theories
(the most popular version of which does not require a singularity).
Furthermore, some other models of the early universe (including the
no-boundary-condition model proposed in 1983 by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle,⁵ which Copan and Craig reject) do not have a
singularity. Without the initial singularity, the claims of Copan and
Craig have no scientific basis. Even if time had a beginning (which is
still an open question), creation from nothing does not necessarily follow. A beginning of time means that we can make no measurements
or observations regarding any earlier epoch, and the notion of time
itself in our universe has no meaning before that moment.
Although it will likely remain forever undetectable, the multiverse
(ignored by Copan and Craig but described below) is gaining acceptance as the “big” view of the universe(s). Some inflationary theories
lead to a belief in continuous creation of universes, and these lead to a
consideration of the biggest picture of reality: a multiverse, the totality of all universes, including the background energy of which they
were made.⁶
5. See James B. Hartle, “Quantum Cosmology and the Early Universe,” in The Very
Early Universe: Proceedings of the Nuttfield Workshop, Cambridge, ed. G. W. Gibbons, S. W.
Hawking, and S. T. C. Siklos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 59–89; and
S. W. Hawking, “Euclidean Approach to the Inflationary Universe,” in The Very Early
Universe, 287–96.
6. An extensive discussion of this view is found, for example, in Adams’s book Our
Living Multiverse, chap. 2.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 285
Copan and Craig do not mention the surprise discovery in late
1998 of the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe, apparently caused by an anti-gravity force similar to the huge energy of
the vacuum or Einstein’s cosmological term, and thus they neglect to
note that this background energy alone may destroy the argument of
creation from nothing. This discovery is discussed in most of the literature published since 1998. The omission is, incidentally, an excellent example of the Aquinas fallacy. As our knowledge of the universe
changes, religious ideas tied to previous scientific knowledge become
inadequate.
3. Copan and Craig confuse what might be called theological
or philosophical nothing with scientific nothing. Theological or philosophical nothing refers to a totally empty space, which may not exist. Scientific nothing refers to the energy of the quantum mechanics
vacuum or empty space, which is pictured as a scene of wild action
and leads to an understanding of the birth and evolution of the universe. Although ignored by Copan and Craig, the energy of these huge
fields is believed to provide the stuff of which the universe is made and
is now observed to be the principal source of mass-energy of the universe. Had Copan and Craig provided a modern inventory of the universe, the overwhelming role of the mass-energy of the vacuum (now
called dark energy) would have been obvious. In fact, the universe is
made of about 5 percent common matter (electrons and protons), 25
percent “dark matter” (a mysterious matter whose nature is not understood), and 70 percent “dark energy” (a mysterious energy).
4. Copan and Craig unjustifiably conflate the creation account
in Genesis 1:1 with the idea that the entire universe originated by
creatio ex nihilo. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth”—so opens the creation story in the majestic prose of the King
James Version of the Bible. From the start of the Christian era, the
theological discussion of the world has always been focused on the
earth and its associated heaven (the celestial sphere), which constituted the known world of the early church fathers.
The biblical account is a remarkably peaceful story. By contrast,
the big bang is a story of incredible violence, involving inconceivable
286 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
forces and energies. It seems extremely unlikely that these two stories
describe the same event, especially since the Bible deals specifically with
objects and conditions on the earth. To read universe and big bang into
the biblical creation account requires a spectacular leap of logic.
The biblical creation story describes the formation of earth and
heaven at about the same time, but in reality they were formed at
vastly different epochs. The history of the universe itself can be traced
back about 14 billion years, and galaxies and stars have been forming
ever since. The earth and sun were formed or created 4.6 billion years
ago. The biblical story is not wrong; it is true to its purpose of presenting a symbolic account of the creation of this earth, and it should not
be read as a scientific record.
To ancient people (and many people today), the sky (heaven) was
a hemispherical dome rising above a flat and stationary earth, which
naturally lay at the center of whatever world they could imagine. Sun,
moon, planets, and stars were lights attached to (or shining through)
the crystalline dome overhead. A few scholars have believed for at least
the past two millennia that the earth was spherical, but even these
were unanimous in viewing earth as the center of their world. Now,
for the first time, scientists are beginning to understand the origin
and evolution of planets, stars, and galaxies that stretch out billions of
light years and reveal an expanding and accelerating universe.
Even when prophets glimpsed the magnificent universe beyond
the earth, God’s instructions always pertained exclusively to this earth
and its not-always-righteous inhabitants. Indeed, Jesus himself often
had difficulty teaching fellow humans to accept even such simple concepts as the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They
could hardly have communicated more subtle information about the
universe, nor was it important to do so.
What does it mean to create? Many Christians, including Latterday Saints, believe that God organized already existing matter/energy
into an earth and solar system. Other Christians (including Copan
and Craig) take a different position, claiming that God first created
everything—including matter, energy, time, and space—from nothing. Copan and Craig find support for their position in the Bible:
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 287
“Furthermore, the idea of creatio ex nihilo is implied in Genesis 1:1,
since no ‘beginning’ for God is mentioned” (p. 111). But, since Genesis
1:1 refers to the earth, one ought to ask: Was the earth created from
nothing? Certainly not! Based on massive amounts of empirical and
theoretical evidence, scientists state that the earth was created from
preexisting gas and dust (a conclusion with which Latter-day Saints
would agree). The argument of Copan and Craig that the language of
Genesis 1:1 (“God created the heaven and the earth”) implies creation
from nothing is puzzling. One might as easily say that Henry Ford
created the Ford car—however, he did not create it from nothing.
5. Copan and Craig ignore relevant portions of the biblical account that conflict with their thesis. Christians must decide whether
to accept the biblical age of the earth as a few thousand years or the
scientifically determined age of 4.6 billion years. There is no middle
ground, and the question of the age of the earth decisively divides
Christians into two separate camps. If a person accepts the biblical
age, on what basis does he or she reject the repeated, radioactively measured ages for terrestrial, lunar, and meteoritic rocks of many types as
well as a host of consistent dates from chemical isotopic ratios, ice
and mud cores, ages of stars and galaxies, fossils, and other measurements? On the other hand, if a person accepts the ages measured by
scientists, how does he or she propose to treat the claims of dates and
times attributed to the Bible? Christians (including Copan and Craig)
who discard or rationalize away the biblical chronology (for example,
by accepting the big bang 14 billion years ago) are left with no basis
whatever on which to mount a biblical concept of creation. In particular, it is illogical for Christians who have discarded biblical chronology
to present a biblical argument for creation from nothing.
How did the big bang begin?
In order to evaluate Copan and Craig’s claims, it will be necessary to examine current thinking about the big bang. Let’s extrapolate
backward in time as the size of the universe decreases and density and
temperature increase. According to theoretical estimates, one year after
the beginning, the temperature of the universe was about 2 million K
288 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
(similar to the temperature of the solar corona) and the density was 10–9
grams per cubic centimeter (close to the figure for the surface of the
sun).⁷ At one second after the beginning, the temperature was about 10
billion K (similar to the center of a supernova explosion) and the density about 500,000 grams per cubic centimeter (close to the density of
a white-dwarf star).⁸ At earlier times, temperatures and densities were
even higher, and such conditions are exciting to physicists because they
allow the nuclear reactions that produce the lighter chemical elements
and (for the grand prize of physics) the unification of forces (a topic that
is beyond the scope of this article).
If one were to extrapolate mechanically to a beginning at t = 0,
one would obtain for the universe a zero radius and infinite values
of density, temperature, pressure, and energy. What happened before
that instant would be completely unknown. Mathematical physicists
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose showed that “the beginning of
time would have been a point of infinite density and infinite curvature
of space-time. All the known laws of physics would break down at
such a point.”⁹ Such a point, as we’ve already seen, is called a singularity. While Copan and Craig accept the reality of this initial singularity
and argue that it requires creation from nothing (p. 140), many physicists now reject two underlying assumptions of the Hawking-Penrose
theorems: that the general theory of relativity holds everywhere and
that the gravitational force is always attractive.¹⁰ Most scientists expect a quantum theory of gravity to supersede the general theory of
relativity, and it was apparently the repulsive gravitation that drove
inflation in the early universe. Rejection of these two assumptions
undercuts Copan and Craig because the theory that required a singularity is no longer valid. Those who support “creation from nothing”
must go hunting for new evidence.
7. Note that numbers in an exponent simply show the number of zeros after (+) or
before (-) the given digits. For example, 105 means 1 followed by 5 zeros (100,000), and
10 –9 means 1 preceded by a period and 9 zeros (.0000000001).
8. Alan H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic
Origins (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997), 86.
9. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), 133.
10. John D. Barrow, The Book of Nothing (London: Cape, 2000), 307.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 289
What is wrong with the standard hot big bang model?
The standard big bang theory, with its initial singularity, was current up to the late 1970s, but it failed to describe adequately the earliest stages of the universe. This model made three empirically verified
predictions: the universe is expanding (although this might be called
a retrospective prediction or an explanation of the observed red shift
of distant galaxies); the universe is swimming in greatly red-shifted
radiation (the CMB radiation from the big bang); and the abundances
of the light elements (deuterium, helium, and lithium) are observed to
have the specific values predicted by the theory. Furthermore, certain
observations that might have contradicted the model did not actually
contradict it.
Since the standard hot big bang model really begins at an epoch
(very shortly) after the beginning, it offers no hint as to the origin of the
bang, and thus it lacks a preceding cause—a fact considered a serious
deficiency by scientists, though apparently not by theologians. Furthermore, the standard big bang model suffered from at least three grave
defects, any one of which constituted sufficient reason to reject it:
1. The universe appears roughly the same in all directions (even
in opposite directions), yet there has not been enough time since the
beginning of the universal expansion for these distant regions to have
been in mutual communication (even at the speed of light)—that is,
unless these now distant parts of the universe once shared the same
laws and conditions (or “were in communication,” as scientists say).
This is called the horizon problem.
2. As the initial expansion of space carried energy and matter
outward, infinitesimally tiny density differences (differences so tiny
they can only be imagined) from place to place would have been quickly
and enormously amplified, and anything short of incredibly fine tuning
would have produced far more structure (clusters of galaxies) than is
observed (the smoothness problem).
3. Finally, there is the flatness problem. Most theories of the big
bang yield an energy density of the universe exactly equal to the critical
density needed for a “just open” universe (a universe that expands forever but whose expansion velocity constantly decreases), yet a careful
290 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
inventory of all the mass-energy in the universe, including dark matter
(matter detected only by its gravitational signature), can account for
only about 0.30 of the critical density. (As noted earlier, common matter accounts for about 5 percent of the total mass-energy and dark matter for 25 percent. Dark energy accounts for 70 percent.) Perhaps worst
of all, the standard model provided no reason for the big bang to occur in the first place. In the late 1970s, scientists were understandably
puzzled by the lack of explanations and solutions to these problems.
In the absence of scientific explanations, however, certain theologians jumped into the fray and declared that God initiated the big
bang. In 1951, for instance, Pope Pius XII pointed to the big bang as
the biblically described creation event.¹¹ Unfortunately, that claim is
not a scientific explanation, as is evident if one asks what has been
learned from that hypothesis.
Does the big bang support creation ex nihilo (creation from
nothing)?
The fundamental question of what the big bang theory supports is
closely related to, and often confused with, the question of the beginning of time. No statement can be made about the universe before the
Planck time, 10–43 seconds after the beginning.¹² One cosmologist says
simply, “The beginning of time is not defined.”¹³ As shown above, very
little information is available before 300,000 years after the beginning,
and, as described above, values of temperature, density, and energy become infinite (unlimited) if one tries to extrapolate back to time zero.
Regarding creation from nothing, physicist Fred Adams succinctly
states: “The big bang does not represent creation ex nihilo. Cosmic history began at a particular point in time—the moment we denote as
t = 0. But before that point we do not assume that there was nothing
11. Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures 1989–1991 (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 1:128; Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? The
Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,
2003), 164.
12. See the section on quantum mechanics, below.
13. Adams, Our Living Multiverse, 38.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 291
at all in existence. Energy is the currency of the cosmos, so this incorrect assumption would imply that an extraordinarily large violation of
energy conservation took place at the beginning of time.”¹⁴
Have we settled everything?
To better understand our remarkable universe and how its origin
and evolution influence Latter-day Saint theology in a comprehensive and comprehensible way is a commendable goal, but it is beyond
the scope of this paper. Such an undertaking is also not easy because
our universe is such an astonishing place and because any discussion
must confront new ideas, some of which may seem counterintuitive
or may fly in the face of common sense. Let me begin with the most
difficult—quantum mechanics (since nature seems to function in accordance with its laws).
What is quantum mechanics?
To understand the behavior of such tiny entities as photons, electrons, atoms, and the early universe, we must look at the strange world
of quantum mechanics. Early in the twentieth century, such physicists
as Max Planck and Albert Einstein demonstrated that light was not perfectly smooth, but had properties of a particle (called a photon) as well
as a wave. Some years later, a converse realization took place—particles
such as electrons, protons, and atoms show wave traits as well as particle
traits. Surprisingly, even large objects (such as you and I) have a wave
14. Ibid., 38. Additional arguments against the theological concept of creation from
nothing, based on considerations of entropy and the energy-density budget of the universe (including points directed specifically at Craig), are presented by physicist Stenger
in his book Has Science Found God? Stenger answers his own question with a definite
“no.” Scientific and metaphysical arguments for and against our universe being a designer universe (designed by God) are further discussed in a variety of books by physicists, cosmologists, and theologians; see, for example, Paul C. W. Davies, The Mind of
God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992);
Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the Universe(s) Report (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1997); Russell Stannard, The God Experiment: Can Science Prove the Existence of God? (London: Faber and Faber, 1999); and Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets
Religion (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2000).
292 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
nature, but it is not apparent in everyday experience because our wavelengths are so incomprehensibly short. The mathematical formalism
that treats the combined particle-wave nature of things is called quantum mechanics, a strange view of the world that is far beyond the scope
of this paper. Indeed, quantum mechanics remains the only theory or
procedure that makes predictions regarding the interactions of such entities as photons and atoms. Furthermore, the predictions of quantum
mechanics agree with nature to an astonishing degree of accuracy.
It is sufficient to note that everything in the universe—including
energy, matter, space, and time—is ultimately discrete, not smooth
and continuous; that is, all physical entities are made up of tiny pieces.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics forbids any objects—because they
are waves as well as particles—from being perfectly localized when we
know something about their velocity. This is often expressed by the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle (named after the German physicist
Werner Heisenberg), which states that it is fundamentally impossible
to measure to any desired precision at the same time the position and
momentum (mass times velocity), or any such pair of variables (such
as energy and time), of a single particle or object. Such knowledge, in
which properties and predictions are exactly determined, is replaced
in quantum mechanics by probabilities.
So-called classical theories in physics (theories without quantum mechanics), such as the theory of forces and motions and electromagnetism, have been reformulated in the twentieth century to
harmonize with quantum mechanics. But one theory—general relativity—has resisted such reformulation, and we do not yet have a harmonious combination of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
What does this mean? It means that the big bang and the beginning of
the universe—the one situation in nature in which both these theories
are important—cannot be fully explained by scientists today. Nevertheless, one can confidently assert, even in the absence of a complete
theory, that, because fundamental entities or objects cannot be precisely localized, perfect singularities cannot exist. A perfect singularity is, by definition, a perfect point, and quantum mechanics does not
allow this. Therefore, the universe cannot have begun at such a (non-
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 293
existent) point. There was always a finite extent to the material in the
big bang, and the stuff had a very large, but finite, temperature and
density. (Once again, quantum theory undercuts the “creation from
nothing” arguments of Copan and Craig.)
The remark made above that perfect singularities cannot exist can
be made quantitative. In our universe, both space and time are discrete on the smallest scales. Planck, the German physicist who first
suggested that light is not perfectly smooth, also defined a system of
natural units in which both the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics play a role, and most physicists believe these to be the
smallest possible pieces. The smallest unit of length (Planck length) is
10–33 cm, and the smallest unit of time (Planck time) is 10 –43 seconds.
Although these units are absurdly tiny by ordinary measures, they
become important for events on microscopic scales and high energies,
specifically including the big bang.¹⁵
What is “nothing”?
Now we consider another remarkable feature of the universe—the
concept of nothing. Because of quantum mechanics, physicists view
empty space quite differently from the absolute nothingness of theologians. One cosmologist remarks that the notion of a vacuum has
undergone a greater change in meaning than any other word or concept in science. From something like an absolutely empty void, the
vacuum has emerged as “a bubbling, brewing source of matter and
energy; it may even contain most of the matter in the universe!”¹⁶ As
time has passed, evidence from several sources has accumulated that
some anti-gravity energy from the vacuum does indeed contain most
(about 70 percent) of the mass-energy of the universe. (As is obvious,
15. Readers desiring to learn about quantum mechanics, M-theory, or various possibilities for the past and future of the universe might start with Stephen Hawking’s
book, The Universe in a Nutshell (New York: Bantam Books, 2001), with its marvelous
diagrams.
16. Lawrence M. Krauss, Quintessence: The Mystery of Missing Mass in the Universe
(New York: Basic Books, 2000), 33.
294 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
a claim that scientific evidence supports the postulate of creatio ex
nihilo must be received with great skepticism.)
Imagine a box one meter (or one yard) on each side sitting in
empty space between the galaxies. What is the least it could contain?
In fact, such a box would contain a menagerie of particles, waves,
fields, energies, and interactions. For starters, it would contain a few
atoms or ions, but let us imagine applying the best vacuum pump in
the Milky Way Galaxy, a magic pump that can draw out every single
atom. Would the box then be empty? No. The box would contain lots of
electromagnetic waves or photons. If the walls of the box were opaque,
they would radiate long-wavelength photons in thermal equilibrium
with their surroundings. If the walls were transparent, dozens of photons of all wavelengths from stars in the Milky Way Galaxy would
pass through the box. Finally, about a billion CMB photons from the
big bang itself would be present in every cubic meter in our universe.
A box in intergalactic space is also bathed in cosmic rays of various
energies and from all directions. Neutrinos (tiny neutral particles with
extremely low mass and traveling near the speed of light) in at least
three varieties constantly whiz through the box without noticeably interacting with anything else. Furthermore, some theories predict other
weakly interacting particles flying about. Every photon or electromagnetic wave is a manifestation of combined, changing electric and magnetic fields. Other fields, such as gravitational fields, are always present, and these carry vast amounts of energy. Even if all particles and
all electric and magnetic fields could magically be eliminated, gravitational fields apparently cannot be eliminated, even in principle.
Our story becomes stranger as we dig deeper. Any attempt to describe empty space is bound to fail unless it includes the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, which form a background for everything else.
Quantum mechanics imposes a rigorous upper limit to our knowledge
because of the uncertainty principle. Even empty space—the vacuum—
is a beehive of activity in which a froth of virtual particles, waves, and
quasi-particles leaps into existence as a quantum fluctuation and then
dissolves back into the vacuum or annihilates with corresponding
anti-particles or waves (on time scales of about 10–22 seconds).
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 295
In quantum mechanics a certain amount of energy is always present. “This discovery at the heart of the quantum description of matter
means that the concept of the vacuum must be somewhat realigned. It
is no longer to be associated with the idea of the void and of nothingness or empty space. Rather, it is merely the emptiest possible state
in the sense of the state that possesses the lowest possible energy: the
state from which no further energy can be removed. We call this the
ground state or the vacuum state.”¹⁷ An imaginary region containing
nothing at all would collapse to zero size.
Although vacuum fluctuations cannot be measured individually
(and are therefore called virtual particles or waves), they can be measured indirectly through their influence on such other processes as
the magnetic strength of an electron¹⁸ and the Casimir effect (a net
inward pressure—from virtual particle pairs, or quantum mechanics waves—outside, felt by two parallel plates placed extremely close
together.)¹⁹ These observed effects demonstrate the reality of vacuum
fluctuations as described by quantum theory. In our physical universe, nothingness is an unrealizable fantasy. (To claim nothing exists
somewhere outside our universe would be an additional postulate.)
Consider now a contour map of the universe or a piece of the universe, where the energy of the vacuum or empty space is the quantity
plotted. On such a topographic map, energy is measured upward at
every point. In this energy landscape, hills are regions of high energy
while valleys are regions of low energy. The lowest point on the topographic map represents the true vacuum, where the energy is lowest—
but not zero. One can now imagine that this map of the energy field
represents the multiverse, out of which universes can form. As we attempt to visualize and discuss the big bang, vacuum energy, multiverses, dark matter, and the dark energy of the universe, this energy
contour map will be of considerable help.
17. Barrow, Book of Nothing, 216.
18. Guth, Inflationary Universe, 272.
19. Hawking, Universe in a Nutshell, 46–47; Mario Livio, The Accelerating Universe:
Infinite Expansion, the Cosmological Constant, and the Beauty of the Cosmos (New York:
Wiley and Sons, 2000), 126.
296 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
In the Book of Nothing, mathematical physicist John Barrow describes the role of the vacuum:
We have seen how the vacuum energy of the Universe may prevent the Universe from having a beginning, may influence its
early inflationary moments and may be driving its expansion
today, but its most dramatic effect is still to come: its domination of the Universe’s future. The vacuum energy that manifests
itself as Einstein’s lambda force stays constant whilst every other
contribution to the density of matter in the Universe—stars,
planets, radiation, black holes—is diluted away by the expansion. If the vacuum lambda force [or perhaps Einstein’s cosmological term] has recently started accelerating the expansion of
the Universe, as observations imply, then its domination will
grow overwhelming in the future. The Universe will continue
expanding and accelerating for ever.²⁰
One must therefore discard old and seemingly obvious ideas
about nothing or empty space, which do not exist in our universe. In
reality, empty space is filled with particles and waves, many of which
we do not currently understand, and the mass-energy of empty space
dominates our universe. It is difficult to imagine that nothing exists
anywhere. Creation from nothing is clearly a fantasy devised by certain theologians, perhaps in a misguided attempt to glorify God by
making of him a fantastic magician.
What is an inflationary universe?
An inflationary epoch that precedes the big bang expansion and
then goes over to it (in a tiny fraction of a second) provides a much
more satisfying description of the early universe than the standard hot
big bang theory and is now widely accepted in general outline even as
details of various models are being worked out. Inflationary scenarios
retain the virtues of the standard big bang theory but avoid its flaws.
Many inflationary models neither require nor allow an initial physi20. Barrow, Book of Nothing, 313–14.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 297
cal singularity, and many of these predict a continuous formation of
universes from the energy of the vacuum or empty space.
Inflation as a model for an extremely early epoch was formulated
by Alan H. Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and others in the
early 1980s; a description can be found in Guth’s book, The Inflationary Universe. In Guth’s early version of the theory, as the energy fields
that would become a universe began to cool down in the first split second after the big bang, they landed in a state of false vacuum, a state
of higher energy than the ground state, which is the true vacuum.
(At this point it will be helpful to recall the topographic energy map
described earlier. A false vacuum is a valley but not the lowest valley,
which is the ground state.) From the false vacuum the universe made
a transition to the true vacuum, releasing huge amounts of energy.
Similar to a phase change in matter (gas to liquid or liquid to solid),
the huge increase in energy from the downward transition resulted
in an enormous expansion—by an unbelievably large factor of 1030 to
1050 —of the tiny piece of the universe that dropped down.
Linde, a Russian-American cosmologist, showed that a gentler
slope in the energy map between hill and valley led to a more satisfactory transition to the standard big bang model. Linde also showed that
the observed universe was likely only a tiny speck in a huge bubble,
and Guth called this the new inflationary model.²¹ In his book, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, Linde shows that the big bang
arises like chaotic foam from a complex of scalar fields (scalar fields,
such as temperature, have magnitude but no direction).²² He calls his
model chaotic inflation or eternal inflation because it continues to
produce new baby universes, both from the background vacuum itself
and from already extant universes.
Inflation lasted roughly from 10 –37 to 10–35 seconds, such an inconceivably short fraction of a second that many people simply throw
up their hands and walk away rather than seriously trying to comprehend it. However, important events can transpire on such short
21. Guth, Inflationary Universe, 206–7.
22. Andrei D. Linde, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, trans. Marc Damashek (Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic, 1989).
298 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
time scales. Inflation succeeds because it is much faster than other
processes, including vacuum fluctuations. Inflationary models retain
the virtues of the standard big bang model (since they later go over
to it) but provide a deeper understanding of the very earliest phases
of the universe (though later than the Planck time). Guth notes the
vast difference in size between the observed universe (the universe we
see) and the actual pocket or bubble universe (the bubble that inflated
from the vacuum). Our observed universe continues to increase in
size, partly by its expansion and partly by the arrival at the earth of
radiation from previously unseen parts of the universe (bodies so far
away that their light had not had time to reach us), but one can never
hope to see all of the actual or bubble universe.²³
What is the effect of this new understanding? “Some universes
with gravitationally repulsive matter still have beginnings where the
density is infinite, but they don’t need to. We have already seen one
spectacular example that appears to evade the need for a beginning.
The self-reproducing eternal inflationary universe almost certainly
has no beginning. It can be continued indefinitely into the past.”²⁴ If
scientists succeed in explaining the universe by the underlying laws of
nature, the implications are dramatic. “We would have accomplished
the spectacular goal of understanding why there is something rather
than nothing—because, if this approach is right, perpetual ‘nothing’
is impossible.”²⁵
Although something like inflation and the big bang occurred very
early in our universe’s history, much of our understanding is still quite
tentative, and dozens of different suggestions, scenarios, and theories
for the beginning of the universe have been offered.
23. More detailed information on the inflationary universe can be found in the note
references in this article, as well as in Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings,
Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (New York: Norton, 1999);
and Martin J. Rees, New Perspectives in Astrophysical Cosmology, 2nd ed. (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2000).
24. Barrow, Book of Nothing, 307.
25. Guth, Inflationary Universe, 276.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 299
What is string theory?
Another broad group of theories—called collectively string theory
or M-theory, in which the basic units are tiny vibrating strings instead
of particles—has potential for explaining the existence of particles,
forces, dimensions, the big bang, and possibly the universe itself.²⁶ In
some sense, M-theory is an attempt to combine quantum mechanics
and the general theory of relativity—the twin pillars of modern physics, and most physicists believe a unification is necessary and possible.
A new version of M-theory, which includes multidimensional membranes (branes or p-branes), so that strings are branes of dimension p = 1,
has revitalized the field. Perhaps the big bang was the collision of two
branes (the so-called ekpyrotic theory).
While many physicists are skeptical, proponents of the new string
theory exuberantly call it TOE (the Theory of Everything). New ideas,
theories, or models may yet be announced in the future because many
puzzles remain unsolved. Science is a search that never ends, and we
must be prepared for new and sometimes strange ideas. Any of these
could put the question of the origin of the universe in an entirely new
light. The seeming dogmatism of Copan and Craig is, thus, fundamentally alien to the scientific study of the origin of the universe.
Where does all the stuff come from?
I will try to keep it simple. Total energies become a bit uncertain
in an expanding and accelerating open universe. Recall that the total
energy (E) of a system is comprised of its kinetic energy (T) and potential energy (V), so that E = T + V. The potential energy includes
the energy of all fields in the universe (such as gravitational energy,
stored in empty space), and the kinetic energy includes not only the
energy of motion of all galaxies but also the rest-mass energy of all
particles (E = mc2). Recall also that the potential energy is negative.
26. Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality
(New York: Knopf, 2004), chap. 12; Hawking, Universe in a Nutshell.
300 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
Strangely, for the entire universe, it appears that these two enormous
quantities, T and V, are almost exactly equal but opposite in sign, so
their sum is very close to zero. Stated differently, energy for the grand
spectacle of creation—atoms, stars, and galaxies—is provided at the
expense of an increasingly large negative energy due to various fields
stored in empty space (the vacuum or the cosmological term). In a
financial parallel, it is as if one could spend whatever one wanted by
going deeper and deeper into debt (so that the sum of the debts always
balanced the value of the stuff), but without anyone being called to
account. We humans live in a very strange universe.
Let us look at the strange mixture. Stars, planets, trees, and humans are made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons, neutrons,
and electrons. We might expect the entire universe to be made of the
same stuff. Astonishingly, it is not so. These particles constitute only
about 5 percent of the total mass of the universe. An additional 25
percent is comprised of what is called dark matter—matter that is not
seen but is detectible by its gravitational influence. Most of the universe, about 70 percent, is made of what scientists term dark energy,
whose nature is unknown but which is likely related to the energy of
the vacuum or Einstein’s cosmological term.
How is energy stored in a field? Where is gravitational energy
stored? A stone lifted into the air, for example, has additional potential
energy that could be released as kinetic energy if the stone fell. Where
is the energy stored? Not in the stone. It is stored in the gravitational
field—in empty space or the vacuum. Such a field is not easy to visualize, but it might help to recall a magnetic field, whose force we can
actually feel and whose energy is stored in space.
Astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees puts it this way:
It may seem counterintuitive that an entire universe at
least 10 billion light-years across (and probably spreading
far beyond our present horizon) can have emerged from an
infinitesimal speck. What makes this possible is that, however much inflation occurs, the total net energy is zero. It is
as though the universe were making for itself a gravitational
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 301
pit so deep that everything in it has a negative gravitational
energy exactly equal to its rest-mass energy (mc 2).²⁷
Perhaps surprisingly, the energy of the vacuum is negative, and it
exerts a negative pressure, with the result that the gravitational fields
(remember that energy exerts a gravitational force) are repulsive instead of attractive. This (outward) gravitational force pushes the expansion and inflation of the universe. It can be identified with the
cosmological term because it acts as an anti-gravity force. The combination of vacuum fluctuations and inflation therefore provides a reason or cause for the big bang.
What is the heat death of the universe?
Energy always flows from a region of higher temperature to one of
lower temperature. Applying this concept to the entire universe, scientists note that, as eons of time roll by, all bodies will reach the same
temperature, and all action, motion, and energy flow will cease—a
process popularly called heat death. Copan and Craig claim that the
God of Mormonism, who is within the universe and subject to natural
law, might also perish (“a pitiable deity,” they chortle, p. 147).
From a human perspective, the future of the universe seems grim
indeed. Over billions of years, the remaining gas and dust in the Milky
Way Galaxy will be converted into stars. Over a period of tens of billions of years, the stars will eventually burn out. As the acceleration
of the universe continues, distant galaxies will disappear from view,
communication will be lost, and a dark, cold acceleration death or
heat death will occur.²⁸ No one can predict what will happen to intelligent life, but only a mighty effort by a unified and righteous earthly
civilization could be expected to call down blessings from heaven to
extend our civilization. Or, perhaps something totally different and
better is in store.
27. Rees, Before the Beginning, 169.
28. As emphasized, for example, by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin in their book The
Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity (New York: Free Press, 1999).
302 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
Interestingly, the increasing brightness of the sun, ignored by Copan and Craig, will present an even earlier peril. Here’s the story. Like
all stars, the sun is burning its nuclear fuel (converting hydrogen to
helium by nuclear fusion) and is on its way to become a red-giant star.
Over a few billion years, its outer layers will expand and cool (become
redder) and its total radiation will increase until it boils away earth’s
atmosphere and oceans. Eventually the sun will throw off about half
its mass to reveal an extremely hot, compact core and flood the earth
with ultraviolet radiation. As the sun’s mass will then be less, the orbit
of the badly burned earth will increase in size until it is nearly as big as
the present orbit of Mars. Having no more nuclear fuel, the sun, over
billions of years, will radiate away its store of thermal energy, cool
down, and grow dim.
Assuming that we still exist as mortals by then, humans will face
the red-giant peril long before any effects of the heat death. Survival
will require that we alter the evolution of the sun or find a way to protect ourselves, perhaps by leaving the solar system. Clearly, either will
require enormous blessings from God as well as a united and righteous effort far beyond anything we humans have yet produced.
What is a multiverse?
Consider a vast (endless) reservoir of vacuum energy (due to various fields, including gravitation), characterized by the appearance and
disappearance of virtual particles and waves. Call this the multiverse.
Tiny universes continually pop into existence, both from extant universes and from the multiverse. Most of these baby universes quickly
vanish again into the vast reservoir, but some inflate to enormous sizes.
Bubble universes do not interact with one another, and there is no way
for our observed universe to communicate with the rest of our bubble
universe. The astute reader will recognize the similarity between the
creation and evolution of universes in the multiverse and the creation
and evolution of galaxies in the universe in the steady-state theory.²⁹
29. Whimsical sketches of universes within a possible multiverse adorn the cover of
Adams, Our Living Multiverse.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 303
New universes may form continually. “The process [of creating
universes by inflation] does not stop here [with our universe], but
goes on forever, producing an infinite number of pocket universes at
an ever-increasing rate. A fractal pattern is created, meaning that the
sequence of false vacuum, pocket universe, and false vacuum is replicated on smaller and smaller scales. Thus, a region of false vacuum
does not produce merely one universe, but instead produces an infinite number of universes!”³⁰ (A fractal pattern is one that reproduces
itself on all size scales—that is, a bit like a tree, where limbs branch off
a trunk, smaller limbs branch off these, and smaller limbs continue to
branch off. Mathematically, this process could continue indefinitely.)
Since we cannot know of the existence of other bubble universes,
why should we believe in their existence? Although these theoretical predictions stand forever outside our ability to verify or falsify directly, the fact that other predictions of these same theories explain a
number of previously unexplained features of our own universe provides significant support for them. (As the reader will see, cosmology
borders on metaphysics and seeks to answer very difficult questions,
and, as already noted, incomplete answers to some questions may be
the best scientists can do.)
One of the coauthors of inflationary cosmology explains the vast
ramifications of this idea. “If inflation is correct, then the inflationary
mechanism is responsible for the creation of essentially all the matter and energy in the universe. The theory also implies that the observed universe is only a minute fraction of the entire universe, and
it strongly suggests that there are perhaps an infinite number of other
universes that are completely disconnected from our own.”³¹
Universes that bubble up from the multiverse might differ greatly
from ours in their force constants or natural laws. If so, most would
quickly disappear, and only a very few would have properties that allow
for the formation of atoms, stars, life, and intelligence. On the other
hand, other universes may be constrained by natural laws. Physicist
30. Guth, Inflationary Universe, 247, emphasis deleted.
31. Ibid., 15.
304 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
Lee Smolin has speculated that new universes might pop up from black
holes, and the attributes (dimensions, natural laws, and force constants)
of a new universe might be similar to those of its mother universe. If
so, universes able to form black holes would acquire a selective advantage in the survival of the fittest among universes. Most black holes are
formed from the collapse of giant stars, and giant stars imply natural
laws similar to those in our universe, where giant stars and sentient life
exist. Smolin’s far-out suggestion thus provides a mechanism for producing a large number of universes that are favorable to life, even intelligent life.³²
Do we live in a runaway universe?
For seventy years following Hubble’s discovery of the universal
expansion, scientists naturally assumed that the expansion was slowing down (decelerating) due to the combined gravitational attraction
of all galaxies. The speed of a stone thrown upward steadily decreases
until it stops and falls back down because we humans can’t throw it
with enough speed to escape the earth’s gravity. For decades, a central
question of cosmology was whether the universe would ever fall back
down. Would the universe recollapse into a big crunch or continue to
expand at a decreasing rate? Definitive measurements always seemed
just out of reach.
However, in late 1998 two different teams of scientists reported
their results on the search for the deceleration of the universe through
observations of Type Ia supernovas—the (nuclear) explosions of gas
captured from giant stars by their white-dwarf companions—with the
Hubble Space Telescope. Since the explosion is triggered when a fixed
amount of gas has been captured, all explosions release about the same
energy, and the supernovas are therefore all about the same brightness
(or can be corrected to be the same), and they are therefore good standard candles (objects of known brightness and therefore good distance
indicators). Astonishingly, the measurements showed that the univer32. Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997),
91–93; Greene, Fabric of the Cosmos, 369.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 305
sal expansion was now speeding up instead of slowing down! That is,
galaxies are flying away from us with increasing speeds. It is as if a
stone thrown into the air sped up as it rose into the sky. Unless the carefully observed data are somehow wrong or an alternative explanation
can be found, these observations demonstrate a repulsive gravity that
is operating to cause the speedup. To be more specific, evidence from
supernovae and other observations indicates a slowing down during
the first half of the life of the universe and a speeding up since then.
What existed before the big bang?
Twenty-five years ago physicists would not have asked that question because unanswerable questions are considered outside the realm
of science. Now, at least an idea of what might have preceded the big
bang is possible. This enormous change in attitude is seen in the fact
that Rees writes a book with the title Before the Beginning, Guth expresses his views in the citation at the beginning of this article, and
Adams titles a book Our Living Multiverse. Interesting as these ideas
are, however, let us admit they are only suggestive possibilities.
What could have existed before the big bang? (1) Although based
only on theoretical ideas, the multiverse is postulated to exist before
the big bang. While it is difficult to imagine any direct evidence for
anything outside our universe, good theoretical reasons support a belief in such an overarching entity. With its hills and dales of quantum
mechanical energy (recall the energy topographical map), the multiverse appears to be (and to have always been) an endless background
of energy for whatever else exists. (2) Since there is no reason to imagine that ours is the first bubble universe, a multitude of other bubble
universes as well as multitudes of failed universes might have existed
as well. Indeed, as noted above, some theories of inflation lead naturally to a continuous creation of universes. (3) Some believers would
add God to the list, and Latter-day Saints might also add the spirits
of mankind. (4) Is it conceivable that dimensions, natural laws, massenergy, and wave functions existed as well? How we wish we understood our magnificent multiverse more thoroughly! (Readers should
note that our present knowledge and understanding of many of these
306 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
points are rather primitive, and that these possibilities are only suggestions meant to stir thinking.)
How long is eternity?
Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the
eternity of human spirits, we briefly discuss eternity within an expanding universe and its possible meanings for God and mankind. Words
such as beginning, end, eternal, endless, everlasting, and infinite are so
freighted with various meanings that they should be carefully defined
when used. For example, people speak of the “everlasting hills” even
though those hills have not always existed and are eroding away as others are being uplifted, and lovers always describe their passion as eternal. The words everlasting and eternal are often used in a poetic sense
and are not meant to be scientifically accurate. In many scriptures, writers are praising God, not giving hard information.
How long is eternity? Theologians can speculate forever, while scientists continue to provide a factual time line.
On the basis of both ancient and modern scripture, Latter-day
Saints teach that human beings existed in some real but spiritual form
before they were born into mortality. Joseph Smith declared: “There is
no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter” (D&C 131:7).
However, we know very little about the nature of spiritual matter,
how spirits interact with physical matter, or how spirits existed before
their entrance into human (mortal) bodies. The human spirit or intelligence is said to be coeternal with God; that is, it has existed for as
long as God has existed (see D&C 93:33–34). Likewise, the elements
(mass-energy) are said to have the same duration.
What does the key word eternal mean? There are several possibilities. (1) Eternal might simply mean “from here on.” After all, the future is enormously longer and more important than the past. (2) Eternal might mean “over the past 14 billion years and indefinitely into
the future.” (3) Eternal might mean “from long before the big bang
and indefinitely into the future.” All entities—physical or spiritual—
must logically either have existed (in some form) before the big bang
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 307
or must have come into existence at or after the big bang. To exist
beyond a few billion years into the future, any entity must be able to
survive the red-giant stage of the sun and the bleak future of the universe. However, let us recall that Mormons are practical people who
are committed to their church doctrines because they provide practical solutions. Church teachings help us in our daily life as well as in
our long-range, spiritual perspectives, and they are optimistic about
our unknown future. Clearly we have much to learn from both science and revelation.
What can Latter-day Saint thinkers contribute to cosmology?
To scientists, the word cosmology includes everything visible, measurable, or detectable by any means, from the very smallest unit to the
entire universe and multiverse. This list includes the complete range of
entities—matter, energy, space, time, forces, laws, dimensions, and consciousness—and their interactions. Even such strange concepts as dark
matter, dark energy, the multiverse, and times before the big bang are
part of cosmology.
Theology is usually understood to describe the study of God and
spiritual matters. It includes ideas regarding the existence, attributes,
and actions of God(s), angels, and spirits, as well as their interactions
with each other and with humans. Theology also includes notions of
life before and after mortality, sin, redemption, atonement, salvation,
exaltation, judgment, and divine punishment. Christian theology also
includes the premortal existence, birth, ministry, redemption, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Jesus. Religion includes theology but emphasizes laws for human behavior, both toward God and
toward others.
A Mormon cosmology ought to relate Latter-day Saint doctrines
of God, spirits, revelation, and resurrection to the physical world. All
truth must come together, but of course that will happen only in God’s
time. After we have understood and obeyed the commandments already given, we may receive more light. Clearly we have far to go.
308 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
Despite writings by several Latter-day Saint authors (including
the groundbreaking book by Erich R. Paul,³³ a few other books and
articles,³⁴ contributions in the book Of Heaven and Earth,³⁵ and this
present article), no well-defined field of Latter-day Saint cosmology
exists. Perhaps our knowledge of the physical universe and of Latterday Saint theology will never be sufficiently complete to allow it in this
life. Cosmology itself will likely never be complete. In the meantime,
let us be optimistic. The freedom to study, think, pray, experience, and
learn without rigid doctrinal guidelines is priceless. At the same time,
Latter-day Saint doctrines can greatly enrich the joy of the journey.
To some observers of Mormonism, including Copan and Craig,
Latter-day Saint doctrine occasionally seems fluid or changeable
(pp. 148, 152). That is a common misunderstanding. Mormon doctrines are generally based upon broad principles with sources in the
Bible, other scriptures, and the statements of modern prophets. These
are sufficient for happiness, salvation, and exaltation. Most Latter-day
Saints—busy with homes, families, communities, temples, preaching
the gospel, and building the kingdom—have not seen the need for a
carefully thought-out or rational cosmology. Consequently, loose ends
may appear everywhere, and different Latter-day Saint scholars may
express somewhat differing views, naturally giving the appearance of
fluidity.
Since Copan and Craig’s claim of creation from nothing—the
heart of their theology—depends on the standard big bang model,
they naturally flail away at the views of Mormon writers who have
attempted to defend Latter-day Saint doctrines or explore other cosmologies. However, to reject the contributions by Latter-day Saint
33. Erich Robert Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992).
34. See David H. Bailey, “Scientific Foundations of Mormon Theology,” in The Search
for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism, ed. Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg
(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 1–16; Duane E. Jeffery, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: An Uneasy Interface,” Dialogue 34/1–2 (2001): 183–224, originally appearing in
Dialogue 8/3–4 (1974): 41–75.
35. David L. Clark, ed., Of Heaven and Earth: Reconciling Scientific Thought with LDS
Theology (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998).
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 309
scholars out of hand is misguided. Cosmological ideas expressed by
Latter-day Saint thinkers are perhaps best regarded as thoughtful
suggestions rather than definitive proclamations, and such thinking
should be encouraged. Like their fellow Christians, most Latter-day
Saints are likely unfamiliar with details of the big bang, and it does
not affect their daily lives. Righteous living is very important to Latterday Saints, but theology is far less so.
A study presented by B. Kent Harrison and Eric Hirschmann at the
2002 meeting of the Mormon History Association reviewed Latter-day
Saint views on creation through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as stated in such sources as the Journal of Discourses.³⁶ While they
discussed the creation of the earth from preexisting matter, they said
practically nothing about the creation of the entire universe. Indeed,
the very concept of the universe, as we understand it, did not exist in the
nineteenth century. A Latter-day Saint cosmology as described above
did not exist.
Although Latter-day Saint thinkers are just beginning to establish
a true Mormon cosmology, which includes knowledge from science
and from divine revelation, we encourage that endeavor. Latter-day
Saint theology is as complete as is needed, and we believe that additional revelation will point the way ahead.
What is the relation between God, the universe, and natural law?
God is immensely powerful and glorious, but can his power and
glory be measured? Over what realm of space-time does God reign?
Where and when did God pass through mortality, receive a tangible
body, and then obtain resurrection and glorification?
A fundamental cosmological problem is to relate an unchanging
God to an evolving universe having a beginning. Although this was
not the original reason, an approach taken by many Christians is
to place God outside the universe, where God remains distinct and
36. B. Kent Harrison and Eric W. Hirschmann, “Astronomy and Cosmology in Mormon Scripture and Thought” (paper presented at the meetings of the Mormon History
Association, Phoenix, AZ, 18 May 2002).
310 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
isolated from the turmoil of the universe with its load of stars and
human beings. Since God is outside the universe and unchanging,
he is claimed to be spiritual and not material.
Copan and Craig seem almost to turn the argument around. They
state: “To explain the origin of the universe ex nihilo, such an ultramundane being [God], as the cause of space and time, must transcend
space and time and therefore exist atemporally and nonspatially, at
least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be
changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness,
and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused” (p. 145). It thus appears that Copan and
Craig take the existence of creation ex nihilo as the most fundamental theological “fact” and deduce the existence of an omnipotent and
unchangeable God as something required to carry out the task of creation from nothing.
While Latter-day Saint doctrines are genuinely biblical, they are
often elaborated more fully in distinctive Latter-day Saint scriptures
and in the teachings of modern Latter-day Saint prophets than they
are in the Bible itself.
1. In company with many religious believers, Latter-day Saints
believe that each human being has or is a spirit that, during this present (mortal) life, is associated with (“clothed with”) a material body.
2. Just as Jesus existed before his appearance in mortality, human spirits also enjoyed a premortal existence. Furthermore, the spirits of human beings are literal children of God, our Father in Heaven.
Humans and God are of the same family.
3. As Son of God, Jesus lived as a man on this earth, taught the
gospel, set a perfect example of service to God and his fellow humans,
took upon himself the sins of all mankind, was crucified, died, and
was physically resurrected and glorified by God, our Heavenly Father.
Jesus will naturally retain his resurrected and glorified body forever.
4. Because Jesus was resurrected, all humans will subsequently
be resurrected.
5. Humans can become godlike and should strive to do so. Jesus
taught and showed the only true way through obeying all God’s commandments and demonstrating charity toward all mankind.
COPAN, CRAIG, “CRAFTSMAN OR CREATOR?” (JOHNSON) • 311
6. Jesus followed in the footsteps of his Father in Heaven, who,
eons ago, was resurrected and glorified and who retains his tangible
body of flesh and bone and now governs worlds without number.
7. Because we are his children, God loves all humans, and he
commands, encourages, and guides people today through inspiration
and revelation.
Joseph Smith proposed the radical idea³⁷ as it was put into a poetic
form by President Lorenzo Snow: “As man now is, God once was: As
God now is, man may be.”³⁸ That is, human beings are of the same
family—which is to say that they are ontologically similar—and on
the same track through life and eternity as God, but that God is an
unfathomable distance ahead of us. God’s love for his children is so
great that they are his foremost concern, as magnificently stated in a
scripture highly esteemed by Mormons: “For behold, this is my work
and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of
man” (Moses 1:39).
Summary
A fascinating concept, the big bang inspires questions of interest
to everyone, and I have therefore discussed it in considerable detail,
including observations on its aftermath, how it started, what existed
before it, and the future of the universe it created. The biblical story
of creation and the scientific story of the big bang appear to describe
completely different events. Armed with this information, I pointed
out several defects in the attempt by evangelical scholars such as Copan and Craig to use scientific results (often outdated) to reinforce
their ideas of creation out of nothing and to poke fun at Latter-day
Saint theology.
To place the big bang in a larger context, I discussed modern ideas
of the strange quantum mechanics vacuum, and these ideas provide
37. See, for example, the King Follett discourse and Joseph Smith’s discourse on the
multiplicity of Gods, specifically Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 345.
38. See Francis M. Gibbons, Lorenzo Snow: Spiritual Giant, Prophet of God (Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 1982), 29; and Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo
Snow (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884), 46.
312 • THE FARMS REVIEW 16/2 (2004)
an entirely new view of nothing, and creation from nothing, a doctrine
accepted by many Christians (including Copan and Craig) but rejected by many others, including Latter-day Saints. One of the strange
features of our universe is the existence of vast amounts of energy
in empty space or the vacuum. All the stuff of the universe—stars,
galaxies, and us—apparently came from, and therefore increased, the
enormous (negative) energies of empty space, which now seems to be
pushing the acceleration of the universe.
The distant future of the universe appears gloomy in the extreme,
and this grim future will be made up close and personal for earthdwelling humans by the coming evolutionary changes of the sun as
its radiation makes earth uninhabitable. The future is unknown, but
much effort and enormous blessings from God will be sorely needed
for humans to survive these challenges.
A full Latter-day Saint cosmology ought to bring together
Latter-day Saint theology and scientific knowledge of the physical
universe, but our knowledge of both is at present too scanty to create a cosmology. Through this article I hope to encourage Latter-day
Saint thinkers. At the same time there is a danger that steps toward
such a rational cosmology might be misperceived by some as genuine Latter-day Saint doctrine, which comes by divine revelation to
prophets and is accepted by common consent of the members.
Our magnificent universe had a remarkable beginning as well as a
marvelous development that has, after fourteen billion years, brought
us to the present moment, where conscious and intelligent beings on
a blue planet can ponder and pray about such matters. Let’s enjoy the
incredible journey!